UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Estimating the mortality risk of valvular surgery

Authors
Catherine M Otto, MD
Gabriel S Aldea, MD
Section Editors
Edward Verrier, MD
Bernard J Gersh, MB, ChB, DPhil, FRCP, MACC
Deputy Editor
Susan B Yeon, MD, JD, FACC

INTRODUCTION

A variety of factors affect mortality and morbidity associated with valvular surgery. The most effective way of stratifying operative risk is by using one of the available validated risk stratification models. The risk models are helpful in the evaluation and counseling of individual patients and planning perioperative care. Models have been developed to estimate risk of in-hospital mortality and complications associated with valve surgery with or without coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).

Risk stratification models for valvular surgery will be reviewed here. Other considerations in preoperative assessment of potential cardiac surgery candidates are discussed separately. (See "Operative mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery" and "Indications for valve replacement in aortic stenosis in adults" and "Natural history and management of chronic aortic regurgitation in adults" and "Surgical management of mitral stenosis" and "Surgical procedures for severe chronic mitral regurgitation".).

LIMITATIONS

Risk stratification models are subject to limitations that may reduce their prognostic value. The models estimate risk for only specified procedures (eg, the 2008 Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] risk model does not include estimates for concomitant aortic and mitral valve surgery [1]). These include dependence upon incomplete or uncertain clinical variables; the models may not be generalizable to patient populations different from the ones in which they were formulated; and they require revision over time as surgical and perioperative care evolves and as the recognition and impact of clinical variables change.

In addition, current risk stratification models do not include several variables that may be clinically important. For example, a severely calcified ascending aorta (also known as porcelain aorta) and severe mitral annular calcification (in patients undergoing mitral surgery) are each associated with high operative morbidity and mortality but are not included in standard risk models [2]. (See "Mitral annular calcification", section on 'Mitral valve surgery'.) Other clinically important variables that are not included in risk models are difficult to measure, such as frailty and nutritional status.

In addition, risk models for cardiac surgery do not necessarily indicate the risk of newer transcatheter procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation, that increasingly are effective alternates to conventional surgery [3]. Current guidelines recommend evaluation of patients by a specialized heart valve clinic when valve intervention is needed so that risks and benefits of a surgical versus transcatheter procedure can be discussed by a multidisciplinary team [4,5].

   

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Wed Jul 27 00:00:00 GMT 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. O'Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2--isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88:S23.
  2. Gillinov AM, Lytle BW, Hoang V, et al. The atherosclerotic aorta at aortic valve replacement: surgical strategies and results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 120:957.
  3. Durand E, Borz B, Godin M, et al. Performance analysis of EuroSCORE II compared to the original logistic EuroSCORE and STS scores for predicting 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol 2013; 111:891.
  4. Lancellotti P, Rosenhek R, Pibarot P, et al. ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease position paper--heart valve clinics: organization, structure, and experiences. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:1597.
  5. Chambers JB, Ray S, Prendergast B, et al. Specialist valve clinics: recommendations from the British Heart Valve Society working group on improving quality in the delivery of care for patients with heart valve disease. Heart 2013; 99:1714.
  6. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1--coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88:S2.
  7. Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, et al. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 16:9.
  8. Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41:734.
  9. Ambler G, Omar RZ, Royston P, et al. Generic, simple risk stratification model for heart valve surgery. Circulation 2005; 112:224.
  10. van Gameren M, Kappetein AP, Steyerberg EW, et al. Do we need separate risk stratification models for hospital mortality after heart valve surgery? Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85:921.
  11. Nissinen J, Biancari F, Wistbacka JO, et al. Is it possible to improve the accuracy of EuroSCORE? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 36:799.
  12. Bhatti F, Grayson AD, Grotte G, et al. The logistic EuroSCORE in cardiac surgery: how well does it predict operative risk? Heart 2006; 92:1817.
  13. Kaartama T, Heikkinen L, Vento A. An evaluation of mitral valve procedures using the European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation. Scand J Surg 2008; 97:254.
  14. Grossi EA, Schwartz CF, Yu PJ, et al. High-risk aortic valve replacement: are the outcomes as bad as predicted? Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85:102.
  15. Wendt D, Osswald BR, Kayser K, et al. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score is superior to the EuroSCORE determining mortality in high risk patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88:468.
  16. Osswald BR, Gegouskov V, Badowski-Zyla D, et al. Overestimation of aortic valve replacement risk by EuroSCORE: implications for percutaneous valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:74.
  17. Dewey TM, Brown D, Ryan WH, et al. Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135:180.
  18. Kalavrouziotis D, Li D, Buth KJ, Légaré JF. The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) is not appropriate for withholding surgery in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective cohort study. J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 4:32.
  19. Ben-Dor I, Pichard AD, Gonzalez MA, et al. Correlates and causes of death in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not eligible to participate in a clinical trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circulation 2010; 122:S37.
  20. Barili F, Pacini D, Grossi C, et al. Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147:1008.
  21. Barili F, Pacini D, Capo A, et al. Reliability of new scores in predicting perioperative mortality after isolated aortic valve surgery: a comparison with the society of thoracic surgeons score and logistic EuroSCORE. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95:1539.
  22. Vahanian A, Otto CM. Risk stratification of patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:416.